Table 1 Characteristics of the analyzed studies on endometrial transcriptomics for fertile women in natural and stimulated cycle
From: 15 years of transcriptomic analysis on endometrial receptivity: what have we learnt?
First author and reference | Participants population | N of patients | Age | Comparative | Region | Array | First sample (day, n) | Second sample (day, n) | N of genes up-regulated | N of genes down regulated |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Fertile women | ||||||||||
Natural cycles | ||||||||||
Carson et al. [22] | Fertile volunteers | 6 | Not specified | ES vs MS | North America | HG U95A (Affymetrix) | LH + 2/4 (n = 3) | LH + 7/9 (n = 3) | 323 | 370 |
Riesewijk et al. [28] | Fertile volunteers | 10 | 23-39 | ES vs MS | Europe | HG U95A (Affymetrix) | LH + 2 (n = 5) | LH + 7 (n = 5) | 153 | 58 |
Mirkin et al. [26] | Fertile Oocyte donor | 8 | 24–32 | ES vs MS | North America | HG U95A v2 (Affymetrix) | LH +3 (n = 3) | LH +8 (n = 5) | 49 | 58 |
Talbi et al. [37] | Normo-Ovulatory Women | 28 | 23-50 | ES vs MS | North America | HGU133 plus 2.0 (Affymetrix) | ES n = 3 | MS n = 8 | 1415 | 1463 |
Haouzi et al. [1] | normoresponder patients | 31 | 22-36 | ES vs MS | Europe | HGU133 plus 2.0 (Affymetrix) | LH+2 n = 31 | LH+7 n = 31 | 746 | 51 |
Allegra et al. [38] | patients who became pregnant | 15 | <35 | Pregnant vs non- pregnant | Europe | Low Density Array technology | LH+7/9 n = 15 | 23 | 11 | |
Van Vaerenbergh [40] | patient who became pregnant | 1 | 24 | MS vs pregnant | Europe | HGU133 plus 2.0 (Affymetrix) | LH+5/7 n = 1 | 4 | - | |
Diaz-Gimeno et al. [20] | Fertile donors | 88 | 22-39 | ES vs MS | Europe | Agilent Whole Human Genome Oligo Microarray | LH+1/5 (n = 13) | LH+7 (n = 5) | 143 | 95 |
Horcajadas et al. [24] | Fertile Oocyte donor | 10 | 23-39 | NC vs COH | Europe | HG_U133A (Affymetrix) | LH+2 (n = 5) | LH+7 (n = 14) | 874 | 505 |
Stimulated cycles | ||||||||||
Mirkin et al. [27] | Fertile Oocyte donor | 15 | 24-32 | Ag vs Atg vs NC | North America | HG U95A v2 (Affymetrix) | LH+8 (n = 5) | hCG+9 (n = 10) (Ag=3, Atg=7) | 24 | 7 |
Horcajadas et al. [24] | Fertile Oocyte donor | 10 | 23-39 | NC vs COH | Europe | HG_U133A (Affymetrix) | LH+7 (n = 7) | hCG+7 (n = 5) | 281 | 277 |
Simon et al. [29] | Fertile Oocyte donor | 31 | 18–35 | Ag vs Atg vs NC | Europe | HG_U133A (Affymetrix ) | LH+7 (n = 12) | hCG+2/7 (n = 14) | 132 | 193 |
Horcajadas et al. [49] | healthy fertile cycling donors | 49 | 23–39 | NC vs CCOS | Europe | HG_U133A (Affymetrix ) | LH+7 (n = 5) | hCG+7 (n = 5) | 69 | 73 |
Koler et al. [41] | Fertile Oocyte donor | 8 | 31-38 | NC vs CCOS | Europe + North America | HG_U133A (Affymetrix ) | LH+5 | hCG+2 | 142 | 98 |
Haouzi et al. [23] | Normo-Ovulatory Women | 21 | 30.9+ 3.3 | NS vs CCOS | Europe | HGU133 plus 2.0 (Affymetrix) | hCG+2 (n = 21) | hCG+5 (n = 21) | 777 | 221 |
Haouzi et al. [30] | normal-responder patients | 21 | - | Ag vs Atg vs NC | Europe | HGU133 plus 2.0 (Affymetrix | LH+2 (n = 21) | LH+2 (n = 21) | ||
Ag hCG+2 (n = 7) | Ag hCG+5 (n = 7) | 731 | 451 | |||||||
Atg hCG+2 (n = 14) | Atg hCG+5 (n = 14) | 634 | 210 | |||||||